Case 6000949/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Zane Khan v CNC Leicester Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000949/2023
- Decision date
- 6 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Zane Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Zane Khan, brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against CNC Leicester Ltd. Employment Judge McTigue recorded that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires not less than two years' service in order to bring an unfair dismissal complaint, and found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years.
On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not entitled to bring the unfair dismissal complaint. It also found that he had failed to give an acceptable reason, despite being given the opportunity to do so, why the complaint should not be struck out. The complaint of unfair dismissal was therefore struck out.
The judgment notes that the claimant's other complaints had already been rejected on 6 June 2023 because the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider them. As there were no remaining complaints listed, the claimant's case was dismissed and all future hearings were cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required two years' service for an unfair dismissal complaint, found that the claimant had been employed for less than two years, and struck out the complaint after the claimant did not give an acceptable reason why it should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.108 Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.